com_proofing_errors

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool is read-only, opens an invisible Word instance, requires Word installed, and warns that proper nouns/technical terms appear as spelling errors. This goes beyond basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the return content, then adds use context, caveat, and runtime requirements in natural order.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return structure, and the description adds necessary prerequisites, side-effect behavior, and a practical caveat. It could be more explicit about limit semantics or expected file types, but overall it gives enough context for a read-only proofing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain file_path or limit. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify what file_path refers to or how limit affects the returned errors, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns Word's spelling and grammar error lists with surrounding context, including error type, sentence, and suggested corrections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like word_count, get_text, or validate_document by specifying the exact proofing output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It identifies a concrete use case: a review aid before submission. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives like validate_document or com_readability_statistics, so when not to use it is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.